oh man this should be an interesting comment thread. bu on point, why does it seem like as soon as 1 country starts looking into something like this, within 2 weeks 7 or 8 other countries are looking into it? Is it because noone likes to be the first country?

oh man this should be an interesting comment thread. bu on point, why does it seem like as soon as 1 country starts looking into something like this, within 2 weeks 7 or 8 other countries are looking into it? Is it because noone likes to be the first country?

These Canadian suits are civil suits by private individuals/companies (well, technically they're class-action), not the government going after Apple.

What you've got here is a classic case of lawyers seeing an easy way to make a buck. Just like a huge percentage of class-action suits, it's the lawyers that will make the money. If the suit is succesful, the members of the class (the people who bought the price-fixed ebooks) will get a couple dollars each. Meanwhile the lawyers fees will range from 30 to 50% of the settlement. Apple pays 20 million to settle the suit, the 2 million people who are represented by the case get 10 bucks each, and the lawyers get 10 million.

If the suit is succesful, the members of the class (the people who bought the price-fixed ebooks) will get a couple dollars each. Meanwhile the lawyers fees will range from 30 to 50% of the settlement. Apple pays 20 million to settle the suit, the 2 million people who are represented by the case get 10 bucks each, and the lawyers get 10 million.

... does some quick math...

But yeah, these suits are just bandwagon suits. It doesn't mean that they're wrong, though. If a company in CountryA does something bad and citizens of CountryA do get some restitution, if CompanyA did the same bad thing(s) in CountryB, citizens of CountryB should also be elligible for restitution under their own laws, IMO.

oh man this should be an interesting comment thread. bu on point, why does it seem like as soon as 1 country starts looking into something like this, within 2 weeks 7 or 8 other countries are looking into it? Is it because noone likes to be the first country?

These Canadian suits are civil suits by private individuals/companies (well, technically they're class-action), not the government going after Apple.

What you've got here is a classic case of lawyers seeing an easy way to make a buck. Just like a huge percentage of class-action suits, it's the lawyers that will make the money. If the suit is succesful, the members of the class (the people who bought the price-fixed ebooks) will get a couple dollars each. Meanwhile the lawyers fees will range from 30 to 50% of the settlement. Apple pays 20 million to settle the suit, the 2 million people who are represented by the case get 10 bucks each, and the lawyers get 10 million.

Class-action lawsuits are a poster child for tort reform.

I agree to an extent, but if the lawyers aren't going to make much money, where's the incentive to take on cases like this? Certainly I think a better balance should be had though, I can't help but think that the lawyers are padding their expenses a bit. I don't think anyone accounts for their time like a lawyer - well, at least when it's to their benefit.

oh man this should be an interesting comment thread. bu on point, why does it seem like as soon as 1 country starts looking into something like this, within 2 weeks 7 or 8 other countries are looking into it? Is it because noone likes to be the first country?

These Canadian suits are civil suits by private individuals/companies (well, technically they're class-action), not the government going after Apple.

What you've got here is a classic case of lawyers seeing an easy way to make a buck. Just like a huge percentage of class-action suits, it's the lawyers that will make the money. If the suit is succesful, the members of the class (the people who bought the price-fixed ebooks) will get a couple dollars each. Meanwhile the lawyers fees will range from 30 to 50% of the settlement. Apple pays 20 million to settle the suit, the 2 million people who are represented by the case get 10 bucks each, and the lawyers get 10 million.

Class-action lawsuits are a poster child for tort reform.

How is it a reform issue?.The clients are free to negotiate the fee, or go with a cheaper lawyer.

oh man this should be an interesting comment thread. bu on point, why does it seem like as soon as 1 country starts looking into something like this, within 2 weeks 7 or 8 other countries are looking into it? Is it because noone likes to be the first country?

These Canadian suits are civil suits by private individuals/companies (well, technically they're class-action), not the government going after Apple.

What you've got here is a classic case of lawyers seeing an easy way to make a buck. Just like a huge percentage of class-action suits, it's the lawyers that will make the money. If the suit is succesful, the members of the class (the people who bought the price-fixed ebooks) will get a couple dollars each. Meanwhile the lawyers fees will range from 30 to 50% of the settlement. Apple pays 20 million to settle the suit, the 2 million people who are represented by the case get 10 bucks each, and the lawyers get 10 million.

Class-action lawsuits are a poster child for tort reform.

I agree to an extent, but if the lawyers aren't going to make much money, where's the incentive to take on cases like this? Certainly I think a better balance should be had though, I can't help but think that the lawyers are padding their expenses a bit. I don't think anyone accounts for their time like a lawyer - well, at least when it's to their benefit.

I have no problem with the lawyers making the money in these cases. In Canada, at present we have a corporate lapdog government that would be unlikely to ever sue any corporation over anything. (They legislated airline cabin personel back to work from a legal strike who were making from $18000 to $44000 per year!)The only recourse for folks in Canada, wishing to change corporate practices (price-fixing here) like these is a punitive class action lawsuit. Whether its a bandwagon lawsuit or not, for those people and people like me who are actually pissed-off about the fixed and ridiculous price increases for E-books, there's really nothing else we can do. I applaud these suits for that reason. Nothing else can be done in Canada, presently. Our government is sure as hell not going to look out for us against corporate interests.

oh man this should be an interesting comment thread. bu on point, why does it seem like as soon as 1 country starts looking into something like this, within 2 weeks 7 or 8 other countries are looking into it? Is it because noone likes to be the first country?

They're Canadian, they're afraid of everything, and they rarely have any initiative.

oh man this should be an interesting comment thread. bu on point, why does it seem like as soon as 1 country starts looking into something like this, within 2 weeks 7 or 8 other countries are looking into it? Is it because noone likes to be the first country?

Because evidence raised by the DoJ case can be used by other courts, basically the US government is bankrolling the other investigations(as is the EU), reducing the cost for others to file suit since they do not have to work so hard on the investigation or discovery...

oh man this should be an interesting comment thread. bu on point, why does it seem like as soon as 1 country starts looking into something like this, within 2 weeks 7 or 8 other countries are looking into it? Is it because noone likes to be the first country?

They're Canadian, they're afraid of everything, and they rarely have any initiative.

oh man this should be an interesting comment thread. bu on point, why does it seem like as soon as 1 country starts looking into something like this, within 2 weeks 7 or 8 other countries are looking into it? Is it because noone likes to be the first country?

They're Canadian, they're afraid of everything, and they rarely have any initiative.

That's a little too much.

your names Maxipad and you're a Canadian, I'll decide what's too much thakn you very much. kiss the Queens ass for me.

oh man this should be an interesting comment thread. bu on point, why does it seem like as soon as 1 country starts looking into something like this, within 2 weeks 7 or 8 other countries are looking into it? Is it because noone likes to be the first country?

They're Canadian, they're afraid of everything, and they rarely have any initiative.

oh man this should be an interesting comment thread. bu on point, why does it seem like as soon as 1 country starts looking into something like this, within 2 weeks 7 or 8 other countries are looking into it? Is it because noone likes to be the first country?

They're Canadian, they're afraid of everything, and they rarely have any initiative.

None of this is related to fear (just greed), but hey I'll bite: You'd have to be oblivious to the tone of political discourse in the USA and Europe to believe that. Competent banks, no need for handguns, stable economy. I don't know anyone afraid of anything here. You should visit

Apple may be able to influence its U.S. DoJ case in some way but it becomes more difficult in Canada. The judiciary here seems to be more independant of the legislative bodies (government) and more often rules against the government and corporations than in the U.S. recently. Plus this is a civil suit, in a non-U.S. jurisdiction, so no government involvement, hence less opportunity for an "influenced" outcome. This is not an attempt at bragging or comparison, just an observation of a disturbing trend in the U.S. recently, at least at the SCOPUS level of the judicial branch there.I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong about this. Just an observation based on the Citizen United case and some of the erosion of privacy rights, Patriot Act, etc..The Supreme Court here just invalidated another piece of legislation (attempting to allow warrantless wiretaps in "emergencies") for being unconstitutional and seems to regularly throw out legislation (mostly brought by our present right-wing government) for unconstitutionality. (Or maybe the laws have just been more egregiously foul under this Gov...) Of course, this is just my opinion.Again, I'm not trying to start a flame war.

oh man this should be an interesting comment thread. bu on point, why does it seem like as soon as 1 country starts looking into something like this, within 2 weeks 7 or 8 other countries are looking into it? Is it because noone likes to be the first country?

They're Canadian, they're afraid of everything, and they rarely have any initiative.

That's a little too much.

Ignore/report the troll. He's going way over the line here.

Thanks for the support. I usually try ignoring first. We'll see if there's more forthcoming or if he was actually making a joke. I've only had to report one troll and ARS did a good job of following up.

Apple may be able to influence its U.S. DoJ case in some way but it becomes more difficult in Canada. The judiciary here seems to be more independant of the legislative bodies (government) and more often rules against the government and corporations than in the U.S. recently. Plus this is a civil suit, in a non-U.S. jurisdiction, so no government involvement, hence less opportunity for an "influenced" outcome. This is not an attempt at bragging or comparison, just an observation of a disturbing trend in the U.S. recently, at least at the SCOPUS level of the judicial branch there.I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong about this. Just an observation based on the Citizen United case and some of the erosion of privacy rights, Patriot Act, etc..The Supreme Court here just invalidated another piece of legislation (attempting to allow warrantless wiretaps in "emergencies") for being unconstitutional and seems to regularly throw out legislation (mostly brought by our present right-wing government) for unconstitutionality. (Or maybe the laws have just been more egregiously foul under this Gov...) Of course, this is just my opinion.Again, I'm not trying to start a flame war.

Don't mean to either, but the government filing a lawsuit does not affect the ability of private parties to do so on their own, so painting their inaction as a good thing is, well, spin, in my opinion.

Apple may be able to influence its U.S. DoJ case in some way but it becomes more difficult in Canada. The judiciary here seems to be more independant of the legislative bodies (government) and more often rules against the government and corporations than in the U.S. recently. Plus this is a civil suit, in a non-U.S. jurisdiction, so no government involvement, hence less opportunity for an "influenced" outcome. This is not an attempt at bragging or comparison, just an observation of a disturbing trend in the U.S. recently, at least at the SCOPUS level of the judicial branch there.I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong about this. Just an observation based on the Citizen United case and some of the erosion of privacy rights, Patriot Act, etc..The Supreme Court here just invalidated another piece of legislation (attempting to allow warrantless wiretaps in "emergencies") for being unconstitutional and seems to regularly throw out legislation (mostly brought by our present right-wing government) for unconstitutionality. (Or maybe the laws have just been more egregiously foul under this Gov...) Of course, this is just my opinion.Again, I'm not trying to start a flame war.

Don't mean to either, but the government filing a lawsuit does not affect the ability of private parties to do so on their own, so painting their inaction as a good thing is, well, spin, in my opinion.

I agree with you. I didn't mean to imply that our government's inaction was a good thing. I think our government's inaction or negative action on issues involving big money corporations is pathetic in its cock-suckery.I only meant that a case without government involvement can't be influenced by things like campaign contributions, et. al. (I'm thinking of the Microsoft antitrust suit, for example, in the U.S. or many similar types of cases in Canada.)

At what point in history have "customers" been given the right to tell any businessman or Corporation what to charge for a product?

Isn't this a case of "vote with your wallet"?

Or is this guy in Canada just having a hissy fit because Amazon.com got pushed out of their monopoly position?

Seems to me that a business owner/Corporation has the RIGHT to negotiate the best wholesale rate from vendors, and then do a markup that makes sense to the profit ledger AND still makes a reasonable amount of sense to the customer.

I compare prices between Apple and Amazon for my books/reading material; and have yet to find a reason to purchase books from Apple. Amazon is still my go-to place. Not having found the variety or the price point at Apple that appeals to my "wallet".

What part of filed under 3 different provinces did you guys miss. This isn't a government of canada thing, and no I don't think a trial held in US or anywhere will influence a trial held in Quebec either.

oh man this should be an interesting comment thread. bu on point, why does it seem like as soon as 1 country starts looking into something like this, within 2 weeks 7 or 8 other countries are looking into it? Is it because noone likes to be the first country?

They're Canadian, they're afraid of everything, and they rarely have any initiative.

That's a little too much.

Ignore/report the troll. He's going way over the line here.

Thanks for the support. I usually try ignoring first. We'll see if there's more forthcoming or if he was actually making a joke. I've only had to report one troll and ARS did a good job of following up.

What could I possibly have against Canadia? They make for a mighty fine hat, if I do say so myself.

At what point in history have "customers" been given the right to tell any businessman or Corporation what to charge for a product?

Isn't this a case of "vote with your wallet"?

Or is this guy in Canada just having a hissy fit because Amazon.com got pushed out of their monopoly position?

Seems to me that a business owner/Corporation has the RIGHT to negotiate the best wholesale rate from vendors, and then do a markup that makes sense to the profit ledger AND still makes a reasonable amount of sense to the customer.

I compare prices between Apple and Amazon for my books/reading material; and have yet to find a reason to purchase books from Apple. Amazon is still my go-to place. Not having found the variety or the price point at Apple that appeals to my "wallet".

Unsurprisingly collusion and price fixing are illegal in Canada. Some people might like their money back.

Meanwhile, everything else is more expensive in Canada because companies love to jack the prices on anything that crosses the border.Seriously, the price differences are obscene, and in most cases, there's no actual reason for them other than gouging Canadians.

At what point in history have "customers" been given the right to tell any businessman or Corporation what to charge for a product?

Isn't this a case of "vote with your wallet"?

Or is this guy in Canada just having a hissy fit because Amazon.com got pushed out of their monopoly position?

Seems to me that a business owner/Corporation has the RIGHT to negotiate the best wholesale rate from vendors, and then do a markup that makes sense to the profit ledger AND still makes a reasonable amount of sense to the customer.

I compare prices between Apple and Amazon for my books/reading material; and have yet to find a reason to purchase books from Apple. Amazon is still my go-to place. Not having found the variety or the price point at Apple that appeals to my "wallet".

Its not about telling businesses what to charge. Its about the businesses getting together and agreeing to ALL raise prices at the same time. That kind of agreement is illegal. If each and every one of these publishers had decided, on their own terms to change the business model and/or raise prices, there would be nothing anyone could do about it. However, thats not what happened. What happened is they all got together and decided as a group to force higher prices on the entire market. Thats called price fixing and is illegal in most countries.

oh man this should be an interesting comment thread. bu on point, why does it seem like as soon as 1 country starts looking into something like this, within 2 weeks 7 or 8 other countries are looking into it? Is it because noone likes to be the first country?

They're Canadian, they're afraid of everything, and they rarely have any initiative.

That's a little too much.

Ignore/report the troll. He's going way over the line here.

Thanks for the support. I usually try ignoring first. We'll see if there's more forthcoming or if he was actually making a joke. I've only had to report one troll and ARS did a good job of following up.

What could I possibly have against Canadia? They make for a mighty fine hat, if I do say so myself.

Yeah, I mean whats to hate about single digit unemployment, universal health care, education subsidies, cheap drugs, fresh not watered down beer, poutine, a stable housing market, the second or third largest oil reserves in the world, some of the richest uranium deposits in the entire world, most of NA's fresh water, lax laws on drug use(marijuana), great reputation worldwide, our no meaningful hurricanes or tornadoes or earthquakes, I think we feel aftershocks from down south mostly, and our amazing sense of humour and ability to make fun of ourselves, eh?

Meanwhile, everything else is more expensive in Canada because companies love to jack the prices on anything that crosses the border.Seriously, the price differences are obscene, and in most cases, there's no actual reason for them other than gouging Canadians.

Don't forget the ludicrous exise taxes levied by Customs Canada on anything that crosses the border. The federal government doesn't dare give up the tax revenue. Just look at the difference in prices between amazon.com and amazon.ca. This is a big reason Canadians get ripped off.

oh man this should be an interesting comment thread. bu on point, why does it seem like as soon as 1 country starts looking into something like this, within 2 weeks 7 or 8 other countries are looking into it? Is it because noone likes to be the first country?

They're Canadian, they're afraid of everything, and they rarely have any initiative.

Anyone who defenders the agency model needs to go look at the prices on some books that use it... for example John Birmingham's Axis of Time books... paperback books? aprox. $7US... eBooks? aprox. $11US!!!!!! And Amazon makes it very clear that the price is set by the publisher.

The Agency model is being used in an anticompetitive manner, I even think that anti-trust groups should be looking into it, it's like they are trying to force people back to buying deadtree books.

I hope more countries sue over this. Then we can say, Hey Apple! The whole world is suing you, maybe your e-book pricing schemes were wrong and people don't like it. I still don't think Apple would listen though.

If I've read previous articles correctly, part of Apple's alleged collusion in this affair is that their contract with the publishers ensured that no one else (ie. Amazon) could sell said books for less than Apple. That's price-fixing.To comply, since they already wanted to, the publishers pulled their books from Amazon until they agreed to sell at the new, higher prices.Apple will probably argue that they didn't collude, but were forced to sell at the higher prices, too, by the publishers involved. The DoJ will have to prove Apple's willing collusion in the initial agreement, rather than unwilling but forced compliance after the fact, like Amazon.We'll see what the courts decide in the U.S. and elsewhere.Meanwhile, Amazon rejoices because they can return to their low margin, super-competitive pricing and consumers can once again get E-books at least as cheaply as paperbacks. (No one can tell me it doesn't cost at least a couple of bucks/book to print and ship hard copy books.)

And still nobody with authority to do something about it has wised up on the underlying issue being DRM. DRM locks customers to platforms, meaning that customers can't simply up and jump platform if they find prices to be unacceptable. Now if a customer have only 1 or 2 books on a platform, it is easy to "burn" that expense and switch. But 10 or 20?

And still nobody with authority to do something about it has wised up on the underlying issue being DRM. DRM locks customers to platforms, meaning that customers can't simply up and jump platform if they find prices to be unacceptable. Now if a customer have only 1 or 2 books on a platform, it is easy to "burn" that expense and switch. But 10 or 20?

DRM is actually irrelevent to this case. With the Agency model, combined with Apple's MFN clause, nobody could sell at a lesser price no matter what. If you found the price to be too high on iBooks, it would also be too high on Amazon, B&N, Kobo, Sony, etc.